Personal injury awards increase by 48% in 3 years.....

Hector Bellend

I used to work as a PI claims handler and the legal practitioners of Ireland have a lot to answer for.

na1

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

Making a spurious personal injury claim is considered a rite of passage for a certain group of people who live here in Ireland.

That's a culture. I know the man who did 3 claims for 3 different occasions for himself, his wife and his children in a few years period.

na1

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Insurance companies are in the game of making money. They constantly hike the price of cover. They say it's because of personal injury claims, fraudsters etc. Always someone else "screwing" you over. Never them just hiking because they want to. Convenient.

So yeah... I do take it with a pinch of salt.

I had a personal experience when the insurance company don't bother investigating the obvious fraudster's claim for around a 1000, because it would cost them at least several hundreds to hire the private investigator + the court expenses with no guarantee to win the case.

dr.fuzzenstein

na1 wrote: »

I had a personal experience when the insurance company don't bother investigating the obvious fraudster's claim for around a 1000, because it would cost them at least several hundreds to hire the private investigator + the court expenses with no guarantee to win the case.

And I think that's bad logic. Or maybe not, keep reading. The guy with the spurious claim will now tell all his mates "it was easy as pie, they just handed me the money, like" and there will be a dozen more claims. Each spawning also a dozen more.
But insurance companies have changed their tactic. Instead of vigorously contesting claims, they just pay them and whack it on the premium.
That way they're punting the problem back to the state. Since government doesn't listen to pleas to reform the legal sector (filled with all their very dear friends and relatives who are rolling in it), I am willing to bet insurance companies are testing out how much they can inflate this thing before it explodes into someone's face.

I better go trip over something

dr.fuzzenstein

bluewolf wrote: »

I better go trip over something

Just don't complain about your renewal!

gozunda

na1 wrote: »

That's a culture. I know the man who did 3 claims for 3 different occasions for himself, his wife and his children in a few years period.

I know of a similar family. Rather than blacklist such chancers - the insurance industry penalises everyone else...

happywithlife

on the other hand we've been involved out of the blue our insurance company is investigating what I thought was a pretty open & shut case as the third party has cropped up with several similar incidents / "accidents"" in the past.
doesn't help in the interirm when our renewal shot from 600 to 1600 (plus another 80 to pay monthly)
but hopefully these gougers will be left with their legal expense minus the big bucks payout they were expecting

dr.fuzzenstein

happywithlife wrote: »

on the other hand we've been involved out of the blue our insurance company is investigating what I thought was a pretty open & shut case as the third party has cropped up with several similar incidents / "accidents"" in the past.
doesn't help in the interirm when our renewal shot from 600 to 1600 (plus another 80 to pay monthly)
but hopefully these gougers will be left with their legal expense minus the big bucks payout they were expecting

Well, maybe that's why they're investigating?

na1

According to MIBI there were over 150k uninsured cars in the country in 2016.
Total number of cars is close to 2 million, which means that 1 in every 13 cars have no insurance.

Sardine

I've seen a few cases lately where travellers injury claim cases were thrown out of court by judges who were wide to their nonsense. The warm glow I felt upon reading of these cases is up there with Ireland beating Germany 1-0 a couple of years ago.

pgj2015

Sardine wrote: »

I've seen a few cases lately where travellers injury claim cases were thrown out of court by judges who were wide to their nonsense. The warm glow I felt upon reading of these cases is up there with Ireland beating Germany 1-0 a couple of years ago.

I would feel a warmer glow if they threw these leeches into prison for fraudulent claims. but what is their punishment for these bogus claims?

Sardine

pgj2015 wrote: »

I would feel a warmer glow if they threw these leeches into prison for fraudulent claims. but what is their punishment for these bogus claims?

I think they’re responsible for legal fees which they never pay anyway. Hopefully it encourages less law firms to take on their bogus claims.

Berserker

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

It's just the cosy arrangement between the government, the legal profession and the medical profession and the motor industry, where nobody wants to upset the gravy train, so they come up with newer ways to screw the ordinary Joe Soap.

What arrangement do they have with the medical profession?

Deleted User wrote: »

And my insurance premium this year, after shopping around and moving to a different insurer, went up an astonishing 82% (and I have still over 10 years no claims bonus). 82% increase in a single year. Do the maths. I have zero sympathy for these exceedingly rich glorified gamblers of the "too big to fail" variety. We are being screwed royally by insurance companies and their guaranteed income stream (by virtue of the state legislating that every vehicle owner must have motor insurance).

Firstly, am I the only person in the country who's car insurance goes down every year? I have full ncb, zero claims. I worked in the sector for years and you'd only see increases in premium on that scale when the level of risk has increased substantially. Secondly, what is your alternative to motor insurance?

Sardine wrote: »

I think they’re responsible for legal fees which they never pay anyway. Hopefully it encourages less law firms to take on their bogus claims.

It won't. The profits they make for the remainder of the cases cover these losses. The best way to reduce bogus claims is to put bogus claimants behind bars.

topper75

I am not a socialist, but...
Car insurance should be NATIONALISED. It is the most obvious industry candidate for nationalisation as the obligation to by the product is created by the government. You can't set such an obligation and then turn away to let the public be exposed to the ravages of a private sector oligopoly cartel.
If you say the people must buy something and only a few sell it, it doesn't take a PhD in economics to figure out the likely effect of that on the price of that something.
There should be no premiums in the old sense - these should be raised as fuel premiums at the pumps, thus ensuring:

-You pay in proportion to risk to at least some objective extent (distance driven)
-There is no opportunity for evasion by anybody rich poor, mild-mannered, those of a criminal bent: everybody is insured.

As government also manage claim payouts in such a nationalised system, they have a direct incentive to keep them realistic.

blackwhite

topper75 wrote: »

I am not a socialist, but...
Car insurance should be NATIONALISED. It is the most obvious industry candidate for nationalisation as the obligation to by the product is created by the government. You can't set such an obligation and then turn away to let the public be exposed to the ravages of a private sector oligopoly cartel.
If you say the people must buy something and only a few sell it, it doesn't take a PhD in economics to figure out the likely effect of that on the price of that something.
There should be no premiums in the old sense - these should be raised as fuel premiums at the pumps, thus ensuring:

-You pay in proportion to risk to at least some objective extent (distance driven)
-There is no opportunity for evasion by anybody rich poor, mild-mannered, those of a criminal bent: everybody is insured.

As government also manage claim payouts in such a nationalised system, they have a direct incentive to keep them realistic.

I’d give it till about a week after nationalisation until we get the first sob story.

“Margaret has only 20 Road Traffic convictions, but the evil state insurance company is quoting her €2000 for her renewal and this means she can’t afford to drive her 15 children to school!!!!”

Harry Palmr

It's not hard to work out really - levy fuel for third party, shoot the lawyers.

na1

blackwhite wrote: »

I
“Margaret has only 20 Road Traffic convictions, but the evil state insurance company is quoting her €2000 for her renewal and this means she can’t afford to drive her 15 children to school!!!!”

"Margaret was driving a car with some goods for sale, so she could pay for her car insurance but was arrested by garda"

topper75

blackwhite wrote: »

I’d give it till about a week after nationalisation until we get the first sob story.

“Margaret has only 20 Road Traffic convictions, but the evil state insurance company is quoting her €2000 for her renewal and this means she can’t afford to drive her 15 children to school!!!!”

There would be no 2000k though by my pay-as-you-go proposal.

Premiums on fuel at the pump per litre would be how insurance premiums are collected. Margaret wouldn't even need a quote. She fills up to make her car go - she must pay insurance as she goes.

blackwhite

topper75 wrote: »

There would be no 2000k though by my pay-as-you-go proposal.

Premiums on fuel at the pump per litre would be how insurance premiums are collected. Margaret wouldn't even need a quote. She fills up to make her car go - she must pay insurance as she goes.

So someone who treats the vehicle like a bumper car pays the same as someone who has never had an accident of a penalty point in their life? Seems really fair :rolleyes:


How about someone from other EU coutires travelling here with their cars for a holiday - under EU law their home-country insurance policies will be able to cover them whilst here. Do they now have to pay double?


Insurance which ignores the risk profile of the driver being covered is majorly skewed to benefit those who cause collisions, and those with massive numbers of traffic convictions - and to punish the law-abiding drivers who don't cause and RTIs.

Berserker

topper75 wrote: »

There would be no 2000k though by my pay-as-you-go proposal.

Premiums on fuel at the pump per litre would be how insurance premiums are collected. Margaret wouldn't even need a quote. She fills up to make her car go - she must pay insurance as she goes.

Are you saying that risk should be ignored? A blatantly irresponsible driver is treated the same as a responsible driver. How would you pay for claims and the cost of running this state insurer? The amount of money collected at the pumps would not cover that cost.

Nermal

topper75 wrote: »

As government also manage claim payouts in such a nationalised system

It can't, unless it puts some desperately-needed manners on the courts.

And if it's up for that, there's no need for nationalisation.

lmimmfn

topper75 wrote: »

I am not a socialist, but...
Car insurance should be NATIONALISED. It is the most obvious industry candidate for nationalisation as the obligation to by the product is created by the government. You can't set such an obligation and then turn away to let the public be exposed to the ravages of a private sector oligopoly cartel.
If you say the people must buy something and only a few sell it, it doesn't take a PhD in economics to figure out the likely effect of that on the price of that something.
There should be no premiums in the old sense - these should be raised as fuel premiums at the pumps, thus ensuring:

-You pay in proportion to risk to at least some objective extent (distance driven)
-There is no opportunity for evasion by anybody rich poor, mild-mannered, those of a criminal bent: everybody is insured.

As government also manage claim payouts in such a nationalised system, they have a direct incentive to keep them realistic.

Sorry but it is one of the most stupidest things to be nationalised along with FGs 2007 proposal of nationalizing mortgages.
Everything state run is extremely inefficient, huge pensions, not so interested employees. The ESB is the only example of a profitable semi state and it achieves that through ripping off Irish people with Ireland having one of the most expensive electricity costs in Europe.

I understand where you're coming from but nationalising the industry isint the solution, its a cartel, disband it. The investigation here discovered that any European insurance company wanting to setup here needed to be "invited" by an existing company, ffs what a joke

Wibbs

Berserker wrote: »

Firstly, am I the only person in the country who's car insurance goes down every year?

Judging by people in my circle and the reports on the Motors forums hereabouts and on Reddit, Facebook et al, you'd be a minority over the last five years.

I have full ncb, zero claims. I worked in the sector for years and you'd only see increases in premium on that scale when the level of risk has increased substantially.

I've a full NCB, zero claims over 30 years, full licence since the 80's, no points, my only motoring offence a parking ticket in 1995 and my insurance had more than doubled over the last three years. On the same car that I've driven claim free for over ten years. Yet apparently my risk has "increased substantially"?

Secondly, what is your alternative to motor insurance?

Break up the cartel among the Irish insurance industry and the legal profession and the doctors that support it. For a start full disclosure from insurance companies on their costs, not the ones they let the public see. Full integration with the Guards database the way the car tax is would be another good start.

topper75

blackwhite wrote: »

So someone who treats the vehicle like a bumper car pays the same as someone who has never had an accident of a penalty point in their life? Seems really fair :rolleyes:


How about someone from other EU coutires travelling here with their cars for a holiday - under EU law their home-country insurance policies will be able to cover them whilst here. Do they now have to pay double?


Insurance which ignores the risk profile of the driver being covered is majorly skewed to benefit those who cause collisions, and those with massive numbers of traffic convictions - and to punish the law-abiding drivers who don't cause and RTIs.

Who drives around treating their car like a bumper car? Are you of the assumption that the threat of a higher premium is the only thing between us and armageddon on the roads? That everyone would secretly like to drive like a dangerous nut if only let do so? Dangerous driving can still be prosecuted by police under my proposal!

Tourists can keep fuel receipts and claim an element back. Same as US tourists reclaiming VAT.

Berserker wrote: »

Are you saying that risk should be ignored? A blatantly irresponsible driver is treated the same as a responsible driver. How would you pay for claims and the cost of running this state insurer? The amount of money collected at the pumps would not cover that cost.

Risk is being ignored anyway! Careful drivers like myself are being loaded unfairly. There is zero transparency in the current private market on actuarial calcs.

Nermal wrote: »

It can't, unless it puts some desperately-needed manners on the courts.

And if it's up for that, there's no need for nationalisation.

It currently stands back because it has no loss from a greedy legal fraternity when they go against the funds of private companies. If it goes head to head against them in claims it has no reason to see them enjoy any cosiness. Skin in the game changes everything.

lmimmfn wrote: »

Sorry but it is one of the most stupidest things to be nationalised along with FGs 2007 proposal of nationalizing mortgages.
Everything state run is extremely inefficient, huge pensions, not so interested employees. The ESB is the only example of a profitable semi state and it achieves that through ripping off Irish people with Ireland having one of the most expensive electricity costs in Europe.

I understand where you're coming from but nationalising the industry isint the solution, its a cartel, disband it. The investigation here discovered that any European insurance company wanting to setup here needed to be "invited" by an existing company, ffs what a joke

Efficiency? Ha! Private insurers are efficient? One word in response there - Quinn.
I have no interest in mortgage nationalisation. There are other ways at least in theory of buying a house without using a mortgage.
They have not provided a way to legally use your car without insuring it. If we have decided nationally that it is an obligation we should provide it nationally. I AM disbanding the cartel. I'm taking the motor insurance ball off them completely. No private players.

Berserker

Wibbs wrote: »

Judging by people in my circle and the reports on the Motors forums hereabouts and on Reddit, Facebook et al, you'd be a minority over the last five years.

Yeah, it's the same among my own friends and colleagues. Some of them have threatened to ring my insurer (as a joke) because it doesn't add up. I do pay the full amount up front and I have never switched insurer in all the years (double figures) I've been driving but it can't be that. I change my car once it hits four years old and have never gone above a 1.4L.

From reading your post, you've had the same car for over ten years, so that's going to result in an increase but it certainly doesn't justify an increase like that.

topper75 wrote: »

Risk is being ignored anyway! Careful drivers like myself are being loaded unfairly. There is zero transparency in the current private market on actuarial calcs.

I worked in that area on the software development side of affairs. Risk is not being ignored. I can tell you that for definite. The model has probably been altered to take in other factors and more weight may have been put on your location, the spec and age of the vehicle you are driving, what you do for a living etc.

Wibbs

Berserker wrote: »

From reading your post, you've had the same car for over ten years, so that's going to result in an increase but it certainly doesn't justify an increase like that.

I've heard this before, but that's the thing B, why does it result in any increase? I mean surely accrued time on the same vehicle without a claim over a longer period of time shows a lower risk over said time? Logic would suggest a different car every say three years over the same time means more of an unknown and greater risk? When considering the driver this is in play with the NCB. If you have no claims over a period of time you naturally get a lower premium because you're a lower risk. Why doesn't that extend to the car involved?

Older car more of a risk? then why do we even have an NCT that is supposed to flag risks with older cars and get those off the road that are fecked? Something doesn't add up. The usual insurance cartel industry explanation is that cars *magically* become a higher risk when they go over ten years old. Nine is apparently fine... But if a driver and car have shown a consistently low risk over a longer period of time then WTF is going on. I call bollocks myself B.

I've been with the same broker since 1986. My policy number was 0001. Yeah. I was his first. I say was as he couldn't get a premium that wasn't completely bonkers. And by god he tried. That's where it gets "interesting". I'm now covered by AXA. My broker went to AXA and the best quote he got was well over two grand. The broker I had to go with in the end lopped over a grand off that. And guess who underwrote that? Yep, AXA. Going directly to AXA they turned me down flat. Oh and the second highest quote I got from another broker was over three grand. I'll give you a guess who was underwriting that... Yep part 2, AXA. The same driver, the same car, insured by the same company, but wildly different prices? G'way to fcuk with them.

My personal take is that it's more about encouraging new car sales and car loans/PCBs to keep the consumer churn going and make the economy look solid and little enough to do with actual risk.

na1

Wibbs wrote: »

My personal take is that it's more about encouraging new car sales and car loans/PCBs to keep the consumer churn going and make the economy look solid and little enough to do with actual risk.

Yep, I also noticed that when the car is older than 10 years it is only a limited set of insurers who would give you a quote (and due to the less competition the quote would be higher)
And if your car is over 15 years and you get the price hike from a current insurer
and looking around for alternatives, I can wish you a good luck with this!

Harry Palmr

Can't see why insurers would care to keep people in newer cars other than the obvious - they are broadly safer to crash in and be hit by. Though the hikes of older cars is clearly questionable - would you stand a better chance in a 2003 E class Merc or a 2009 Yaris?

scamalert

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Can't see why insurers would care to keep people in newer cars other than the obvious - they are broadly safer to crash in and be hit by. Though the hikes of older cars is clearly questionable - would you stand a better chance in a 2003 E class Merc or a 2009 Yaris?

or even better 98merc into 2018 aygo would be like rock into water.Question why the f is NCT required at all if insurers rake amount based on engine size and year of the car plus other factors which little have to do with actual car.


Why it cant be like in most EU you insure the car seems to work in most countries without bollox loads or claims,being forced to drive cardboard box.